Hermann Nitsch (DO NOT SEARCH HIS NAME, reasons in thread)

elly well yes, in fact I purposely avoided to say "his art" and preferred to say "his work" for a number of reasons.
I think that there are certain boundaries between reality and fiction that shouldn't be crossed. I would never go see a movie where people and animals are killed for real, as life is more important than any form of art or ideology. Even if in his case he never killed those animals themselves, i still think it's not entirely appropriate to utilize animal blood and corpses in such a vast scale. Also, for how much people are willing to receive blood, guts, or to be crucified, on paper, in the actual moment there are still many elements of very high risk involved with those acts, in the case of blood one could get some serious infections (in one of his acts blood was poured over the mouth of a woman bounded on a pole), we're still talking about dead animals anyway, and in the case of crucifixion people could feel asphyxiated to an extremely dangerous degree (a black metal band does shows probably inspired by Nitsch, they also crucify people on stage, and one of the people that agreed to stay up in air for one hour risked seriously his life).
Another point is that, if you have to explain of your art more than what people are able to get themselves, then the piece of art is kind of a failure. In his case i read that his intent is to "unify the aspects of Jesus Christ with the Dionisyac", that should mean what the philosopher Ken Wilber would call an integration of the path of ascent (and transcendence of the physical realm) and the path of descent (the celebration of all that's material and physical), which is something extremely difficult to convey, and most importantly, that could work in theory, but in practice it doesn't, because he is absolutely not successful in conveying this. Also, i personally think he's in teh totally wrong road.

On the other hand, I really do believe that there is a strong atmosphere, and I really do appreciate his sense of aesthetics. I find a huge sense of symmetry, colour, and a very dramaturgical side with the scenographies, and the choreography of his acts. I think that his main intent wasn't really to shock people, and he probably studied a lot different cultures of sacrifice and trance rituals (there is also music in his act, composed by himself) and religious processions. Many of these things i preferred not to post since they're too graphic for this forum i fear, but there is beauty in what he does i believe. Still, there is no need to be so "literal" in the way he does his thing, and I believe that there is an hint of sadism in his personality.


I guess that at one point art promoters should be able to distinguish true artistic endeavour from extreme masochism at the level of psychiatric disease. But it seems that art in the last century is living in a place where laws, ethics and common sense are not contemplated. As unfortunately with everything, the market is louder than anyone's voice.

But in the end, I guess that don't you connect with the visual part of his work, atmosphere and mood, even apart from the means his work is actually done.

1. I think NiTe makes sense for his type, although I think his age, his language, and his beard will make him seem more Pi-lead and Te by default.

2. His art is not aesthetically pleasing so much as intellectually fascinating. If you like to play with symbols, there is much to enjoy about his work.